A HUGE problem with IMBRA?

[Ray]

While reading the text of the new International Marriage Broker Regulation Act provided by Gara Bala on his Web site, I noticed something rather strange. For some reason, the authors went out of their way to require immigration and consular officers, along with “marriage brokers”, to provide all interaction related to the law with the foreign client/visa applicant in that person’s “primary language”. I believe that they stepped on their proverbial dicks with this brilliant idea.

How in the hell can you expect an interviewing consular officer to fluently speak the “primary language” of any visa applicant who appears for an interview? What if a native Japanese speaking lady applies for a fiancée visa in Italy? Does the U.S. consulate in Italy have to have a Japanese speaking consular officer interview her? How about all those thousands of other “primary languages” out there? How is a “marriage broker” going to find translators for languages that have no written translation? What a bunch of nonsense!

For example, the folks who wrote this stuff apparently assume that all Filipinos speak Tagalog as their “primary language” when in fact there are something like 170 primary native languages spoken in the Philippines with 12 major regional languages. In my wife’s case, I wouldn’t bet that there are ANY U.S. consular officers on the planet who speak her “primary language”. Tagalog is actually a third language for my wife and she speaks, reads, and writes English better than she does Tagalog. I have never even seen a dictionary that translates her primary language to English or vice-versa. All official government documents in the Philippines are in English, but a “marriage broker” is required by law to provide written material to the foreign client in her “primary language”(?).

I can’t wait to see how the gummit implements this “primary language” requirement. LOL!

Ray

[Hoda]

... in response to A HUGE problem with IMBRA?, posted by Ray on Jan 7, 2006

Which is what the women who support this legislation need to keep themselves happy, since they're unable to attract, let alone keep a man!

Despite the worse intentions of this legislation. Guys (with honest intentions) can still go South, East & West (Smile Ray) to find & be found, by what they can't find here....a loving lifemate! Even if I was just starting out...this bullshit legislation wouldn't stop me & it shouldn't stop any other guy!

Let these women & the misguided men savoy their "so-called" victory. The train for guys looking for love outside of North America has pulled out of the station a looooooonnnnng time ago......and it ain't coming back and it can't be stopped!

[lapentier]

... in response to Batteries not included with this legisla..., posted by Hoda on Jan 9, 2006

Hoda, I think you're right.  Actually, this may have the opposite of the intended effect.  With American men being "pre-screened" unlike the men in their home countries, the perceived "increase in quality" may actually end up promoting itself. --Mark

[Ray]

... in response to Batteries not included with this legisla..., posted by Hoda on Jan 9, 2006

I think you're right. Wouldn't the lesbos be pissed if, despite all of their efforts, fiancée petitions doubled in the next couple of years? :-)

[Brazilophile]

... in response to A HUGE problem with IMBRA?, posted by Ray on Jan 7, 2006

Ray,

Though you consider me the list's "resident idiot", I agree that you have a point on the language issue.  I believe that it is not enforceable to require an entity to communicate anything in a non-official language.  I believe that the INS and the agencies will only have to provide information in the official language of the country of citizenship of the woman.  

In Canada, the official languages are French and English.  There have been legal cases trying to make some native peoples' languages official also.  They have failed so far.  Consequently, the Natives must learn either French or English to officially communicate with the government.  I think the US has similar language laws.  I believe that the "primary language" term is subject to legal challenge.  

Caveat: I am not a lawyer so do not rely on my opinion as legal advice.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: A HUGE problem with IMBRA?, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 7, 2006

Gee, I don’t remember calling you that name, but I think you just labeled yourself the “Resident Idiot” of the forum. O.K., if that’s what you prefer to be called, I’ll accept that. ROFL!

I don’t think interpreting the law to require only national or official languages will help much at all. Keep in mind that people speaking hundreds of national languages appear before immigration officers daily at adjustment interviews. Consider also that an applicant for a K-1 fiancée visa can apply at practically any consular post worldwide, which would make it virtually impossible for the interviewing consular officer to explain the required information verbally to any and all visa applicants appearing before him.

From my experience, I seriously doubt that most consular officers are even fluent in the national language of the country where they are posted. Even if your U.S. consular officer in Canada was fluent in both English and French, what would happen if a native Pakistani or Chinese applicant appeared before him for a K-1 visa interview? That sort of thing happens every day around the world. Did the consular officer who interviewed you for your visa conduct the interview in the official national language?

Disclaimer: Even if I was a lawyer, this is not legal advice :-)

Ray

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Re: Re: A HUGE problem with IMBRA?, posted by Ray on Jan 7, 2006

1st.
Check the archives if your memory is bad, or so selective!

2nd.
Yes!  My interview was conducted in the offical language of the USA.  In Canada, those who do not speak either official language are expected to bring translators with them.

As many of have experienced, documents that are sent to government agencies must have translations in the official language of the country in question.  

Governments pass laws making  a certain language "official" for that country for very real and sound reasons.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: A HUGE problem with IMBRA?, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 8, 2006

[This message has been edited by Ray]

1. No need to check the archives. My memory is fine… LOL!

2. You missed the point. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act does not mention translators. It specifically requires consular and immigration officers to verbally communicate with the foreign applicant in his or her “primary language” during visa and adjustment interviews.

3. Also, you mentioned the official language of the USA? Last I checked, the USA does not have an official language :-)

Ray

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Official language of the USA?, posted by Ray on Jan 8, 2006

1)
This is now off-topic, but you need to check the CORRECT places.  

ALL countries, including the USA, have an official language.  It is the language in which laws are written and passed.  It is the language in which court trials are held.  It is the language in which public education is delivered.

The official language of the US is English.  There have been law suits in Florida, and I believe Arizona and California as well, to have Spanish added as an official state language.  This would then require those state governments to deliver services in Spanish upon request.  In Florida, that movement failed.

In Canada, the official languages are French and English.  Any federal government service in Canada MUST be available in both French and English.  Curacao's official language is Dutch, due to its former status as a Dutch colony, despite the fact that the first language of the Natives is papiementu.  They start to learn Dutch in public school.

2)
I dd not miss THE point.  I ignored YOUR point because it is NOT a point at all.  THE point is that the US federal government cannot be compelled to communicate with anyone in a language that is not an OFFICIAL language of a country.  Languages that are not official languages are not recognized.  Therefore, the IMBRA cannot legally require the INS/BCIS to communicate with a person in a language that is NOT the offical language of the country of which he/she is a citizen.

Federal agencies such as the BCIS DO learn and communicate in non-offical languages when it suits their needs, but this is voluntary, not obligatory.  The best example is dealing with Haitians.  The offical language of Haiti is French.  However, the vast majority of the population speak a patois derivative of French now known as Kreyol.  Here in Florida, the CG and INS have Kreyol speaking agents so they can communicate more effectively with Haitian immigrants.

3)
While I am not a lawyer, I have been bombarded with language issues and the law since childhood.  Quebec spent decades trying to supercede federal law and make French the EXCLUSIVE official language of the province.  Then a similar thing was tried in Florida.  I have substantial layman's experience in this area.

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Official language of the USA?, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 8, 2006

"The official language of the US is English."
"In Canada, the official languages are French and English."

Correct on #2.
Wrong on #1.

Drives to ammend the Constitution haven't succeeded just yet.

Almanacs say something along these lines with regards to the official language of the U.S.:  "None at federal level, some states specify English; de facto."

And not all countries have an official language.  Check out Wikipedia's roster; only about half of the countries have one (or more):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages

Also from Wikipedia:

"Some countries, such as Sweden, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, and the United States have no official language, although in most such cases there is a single de facto main language, as well as a range of government regulations and practices on which languages are expected to be used in various circumstances."

[utopiacowboy]

... in response to minor correction, posted by doombug on Jan 8, 2006

[This message has been edited by utopiacowboy]

The United States has no official language. The English only movement is seeking to have English made the offical language but there is nothing stopping a state government from providing services only in Spanish if they chose to do so. De facto is not de jure.

[Brazilophile]

... in response to minor correction, posted by doombug on Jan 8, 2006

Do your sources explain the basis upon which Hispanics petitioning for government services (health care in public hospitals, public education) to be rendered in Spanish are rebuffed?

Does anyone remember the hubbub caused by a school principal who asked his teachers to learn Spanish so they could communicate better with the parents of their students?

The basis, according to their supporters and critics, is that Spanish is NOT an official language of the US and therefore government has no obligation to serve anyone in Spanish, though as a matter of good public policy it may CHOOSE to do so.

I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers I have discussed with have ALL said that anything "de facto" has the force of law.  For example, if the stated speed limit is 55 mph but the police do not ticket anyone driving under 65 mph, then the "de facto" speed limit is 65 mph.  If you then get a ticket for driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, you can successfully challenge the ticket in traffic court on the basis that the de facto speed limit is 65 mph.

[doombug]

... in response to Re: minor correction, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 8, 2006

[This message has been edited by doombug]

If the Spanish-speaking segment of society feels that they're being rebuffed, how would they propose government go about assuaging these other ethnic groups who likely have similar concerns:  

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=US

"The number of languages listed for USA is 238. Of those, 162 are living languages, 3 are second language without mother-tongue speakers, and 73 are extinct."

I'm extremely pro-immigrant--reinforced more so after coming across the writings of Julian L. Simon--but immigrants have a responsibility to either learn the host-nation's language or have a bilingual friend/family member accompany them whenever or wherever situations involving language translation arise.  If or when I retire abroad in the future, my agenda won't be to DEMAND that the host country provide me everything in English.  To make such demands there is to be an "Ugly American"; making such demands here is multicultural activism.

(Simon's books--"The Ultimate Resource 2," "The Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States," and others--are available to read freely and in their entirety here:  http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/)

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Official language of the USA?, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 8, 2006

Yes, you did miss the point. If you can’t understand plain English, that’s not my fault.

IMBRA DOES NOT require communication in the “official language” of the country where he/she is a citizen. Does the fact that someone is a citizen of a particular country mean that he/she can communicate in the official language of that country? Of course not!

And don’t tell us that IMBRA cannot legally… IMBRA is now the law of the land and it DOES LEGALLY require government officials to communicate in the “Primary Language”. That’s precisely why I started this thread. Maybe you should read the law before you tell us what is legal and what isn’t. You're obviously uninformed on the subject law.

And English IS NOT the official language of the USA. The USA has no official language. Do your homework before you embarrass yourself further with your ignorance.

Ray

[utopiacowboy]

... in response to Wrong Again, posted by Ray on Jan 8, 2006

n/t